Walker and the Evils of Preventive War

Walker wants to make clear that he is the most irresponsible hawk on Iran:

Speaking to reporters here Saturday after an appearance at the Family Leader Summit, Walker said the next president will need to be prepared to take aggressive action against Iran, “very possibly” including military strikes, on the day he or she is inaugurated, and said he would not be comfortable with a commander in chief who is unwilling to act aggressively on day one of a new presidency [bold mine-DL].

Walker may think that he is getting the upper hand in the primaries by positioning himself as the most aggressive hard-liner, but in the process he is revealing that he has extraordinarily bad judgment on these issues and confirming that his lack of foreign policy experience is a major liability for him. Why should voters trust him with the presidency when he is eager to boast about his readiness to start an illegal war against a country that just negotiated an agreement with the U.S. and its allies?

The more important thing here is to understand that a preventive war against Iran would be entirely unjustifiable, unnecessary, and illegal under international law. The U.S. would not be defending itself or anyone else by launching an attack on Iran, but it would be committing an outrageous breach of the U.N. Charter. In the process, it would also be exposing its forces and Iran’s neighbors to retaliation and it would risk dragging the rest of the region into a larger war. Michael Lind makes the case that the U.S. should repudiate preventive war once and for all:

The preventive war against Iraq was the stupidest blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy. That some Americans today, only twelve years later, can even consider the possibility of repeating that blunder in the case of Iran is as remarkable as it is appalling.

International law distinguishes between preemptive war, which is legal, and preventive war, which is not.

There is no difference in practice between a war that is called “preventive” and what a previous generation condemned as a war of aggression. Both are unprovoked attacks against another state, and neither can be justified as self-defense without emptying the concept of all meaning. That is what Walker thinks the next president should “very possibly” do as soon as he is sworn in.

Even if Iran were building a nuclear weapon, the U.S. would be in the wrong to launch a “preventive” attack on them. To do so after Iran had started scaling back and limiting its nuclear program would be an even greater crime. Walker’s talk about “very possibly” attacking Iran immediately after taking office would be indefensible warmongering even if there were no deal with Iran. To propose such an appalling idea now that a deal has been reached shows that Walker is so reckless that he should never be trusted with the power of the presidency.

This is the going to be the biggest issue for the Republican Primary. There 16 candidates and Donald Trump all trying to say the most severely conservative candidate in the lot without offending too many people. (And I bet Trump does not lose that much support with the McCain comments. He drops to 10 – 12% polls but the supporters will be stronger.) So everybody is going to state the strongest hawk position on Iran without saying “Ground Troops” or “Shock and MORE Awe: Highway To Tehran”

So Walker would attack on Iran the day of his Inauguration, before he even has his feet on the ground? This is not talking tough, this is talking crazy. Walker is trying to out hawk the rest of the field, and is instead coming across as a kook. Based on this statement, I could never vote for him.

I did not think that this was possible, but Walker makes George W. Bush look thoughtful by comparison.

In order to outdo Walker some candidates is going to have to pledge he’ll launch a nuclear strike on Iran on Inauguration Day.

Girly-man thinking. A real Republican would rally the energy of the free enterprise system to build a private, non-socialist nuclear strike capability — and set it loose on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

We can’t have government picking winners and losers when it comes to nuclear weapons manufacture, can we?

Without a doubt, sglover. Your comment makes me wonder how much support Trump would get in a flatter Democratic primary, were he to brashly and rudely campaign on a couple leftist positions. America’s love for a bit of vigilantism now and then is indeed bipartisan.

I love political candidates, wearing jeans and standing with tractors in the background. it’s so folksy. Perhaps Walker could split a few rails like Lincoln, while he is at it? Perhaps he could load bails of hay on a truck and work up a good sweat.

Curiously enough, the voters seem to eat this nonsense up. And you wonder why so many people are cynical.

I think war is a socialist jobs program. What Walker is doing is saying that he will make sure war profiteers in the armaments and private contracting business will make a killing through killing under his administration. He promises that they will see their bottom lines increase right when he takes office. Remember the 80s with cartoons and toys. He is the cartoon trying to sell toys to the American public. Most of the Presidential candidates are except for maybe Chafee, Sanders, and Webb. I have a feeling the war profiteers would burn down the US before giving up access to the US credit card. If tribute must be paid. What would you have them do with it?

These republican candidates can’t possibly all be as stupid as they sound. Some of them have records which suggest rare flashes of good sense (Jindal excluded). This is just testosterone fueled ambition. They want to be president badly enough to kiss any derriere, anywhere, any time, maybe excepting Trump, who just wants us all to publicly recognize his superiority in all areas of human endeavor.

TB, you forgot the Spanish-American War, although you did have the Philippine Insurrection. I wonder how we would react if another country had politicians going around announcing they were going to launch a war against Israel or invade Taiwan on their first day in power. There is a theory that in late 20th and early 21st century, most corporate and political leaders are sociopaths. Walker kind of proves the point.

I give you vigorous applause Sherparick. The fact that any portion of American society is sucked in by this bellicose posturing to draw votes makes me wonder about the future of our country. I don’t think we need to wonder too much about how we would react; North Korea is a frequent offender of equivalent craziness. Sadly, clowns like Walker appear to think NK-type stupidity should be a part of American foreign policy.